You are here

North Korea

And just to be clear, this isn't the same thing as the argument(heard from various "anti-imperialist" quarters) that the North Korean regime are benevolent humanitarians lovingly striving to protect their people from harm. In all likelihood, Kim Jeong Un wanting to prevent an attack on the DPRK is like Marie Antoinette wanting to protect an attack on France. Nothing to do with love for the people, everything to do with personal survival.

This is a type of comment/statement that is usually propagated by imperial/capitalist forces(If I understand it right?) The leadership of North Korea and it's peoples are basically supporting their political ideology. Not really any specific individuals or families. Does anyone really believe that when any of these countries that had so called dictators as their head of state where invaded, the same political ideology was allowed to remain? In fact, I believe that it was the political ideology that the US wanted to change, and not really that hard to convince anyone this is possible (just ask Pinochett) Here's a good rule of thumb, democracy=good chance US can change the government to one that it wants, dictatorship=US enemy(calling someone an enemy is the first step to military invasion). Any questions?

Similarly, I don't think Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam spent 98% of their state-run "news" time complaining that shadowy forces were plotting a sinister "coup" against them. Though, to be fair, Libya might have.

Thing is, there's a long history of world leaders claiming that shadowy "others" are out to destroy all that's good in the world, and the only antidote, evidently, is more power for dictators and a regrettable, but "temporary" reduction in rights for citizens.

Again, didn't we see this gambit post-9/11? And recognize it for what it was? I'm just wondering why ANY world leader could get away with trying this same schtick again.

Here's a good rule of thumb, democracy=good chance US can change the government to one that it wants, dictatorship=US enemy(calling someone an enemy is the first step to military invasion). Any questions?

I have one: If the rule's that simple, why does the US enthusiastically support dictatorships that are friendly to it (too many to list, but on the Korean peninsula, Park Chung-Hee comes to mind) while condemning and subverting not only opposing dictatorships, but opposing democracies (Allende, Chavez, Papandreou)? I mean, c'mon, this is anti-Americanism 101, and I say this as an American-born man who finds himself in the anti-American camp more than half the time. Surely the most obvious distinction isn't whether a country is a dictatorship (Saudi Arabia/North Korea) or democracy (Netherlands/Turkey), but whether the government that issues from that political system ends up doing what Washington wants or not. And indeed, there's a very solid argument to be made that when America demands a transition from dictatorship to democracy, the results are often worse for America than a prior friendly dictatorship was; Iraq's current Shiite-led government is less pro-American than Saddam was in the 80s. The belief that democracy is the ultimate tool to bring every country on the planet into America's orbit can reasonably be called the "Bush delusion".

Ya I don’t know what you’re talking about because I never lived in any of those countries. And I don’t think you know either. Many people are very aware of the war crimes the US is guilty of in Vietnam. This isn’t a phantom lurking in the shadows.

Beware clicking on the link I’m posting here!!!!!!There’s real images of children who are suffering!

i don’t recal the US or Canada for that matter calling Saudi’s Arabia an enemy. Come to think of it, I don’t even recall the government calling the Saudi a dictatorship? Regime is also another word that the corporate media and the government like to throw around when the definition of dictatorship isn’t flexible enough to meet their agenda.

Hey wait a second bro, you cut off my comment! I also said I never recalled the US and Canada calling Saudi a dictatorship!

So it only counts as a dictatorship if the US and Canada call it one? What if the US and Canada refuse to acknowledge the dictatorships that are being run the way they like?

It's completely obvious that "spreading democracy" is just a convenient excuse for western governments (particularly the U.S.) to overthrow dictators that step out of line. Just like how the same governments' noise about "human rights" and/or "women's rights" and or whatever other rights violations are similarly applied selectively to countries we don't like (such as Libya in 2011, Syria in 2015) but not to others (such as Isreal, and Saudi Arabia).

And I'll explicitly state that I did NOT include North Korea in the countries we don't like because the North Korean government's tyranny is in a category all of it's own compared to anything else going on in the world right now or in the last few decades. I have nothing but sympathy for the North Korean people, and I even understand the lack of options faced by their leaders - but frankly I find it appalling that you'd justify and even seem to cheer for the enslavement and starvation of millions of people - and, apparently, the nuclear obliteration of hundreds of millions more - just to stick it to the U.S. imperialists. Your solution is magnitudes worse than the problem you claim to want to solve.

I don't want to argue too hard here, because you're actually living in Korea and such.

But I wonder whether the unfortunate moral of the story is that Qaddafi showed weakness, and that's the kiss of death for strongman dictators? Your timeline suggests eight years between Qaddafi agreeing to ease up on the nukes, and Qaddafi getting the Mussolini treatment. What changed? Surely it's not just a given that if you cease developing WMDs, they come to get you.

If they don't like you, they come to get you. If you have WMDs, that makes it harder for them to come get you. You don't need the WMDs if they are okay with you.

The story that sounds most credible to me is that they came for Qaddafi when he rejected the dollar standard in favour of the gold standard. When he played by the U.S.' rules it was fine. In fact when taking a quick peek I found articles to that effect even pre-dating his death.

On the other hand, the NK regime is on very bad terms(TM) with the U.S., so they absolutely do have a legitimate claim to needing to be able to defend themselves for self-preservation - in the same way that a group of bank robbers who've already killed a few hostages and are surrounded by SWAT needs their AK-47s, or whatever guns people would actually use in a heist.

I don't want to argue too hard here, because you're actually living in Korea and such.

Feel free. My Korean language skills are in the toilet, and everything I post here is from English-language sources that anyone else could look up(usually I try for Korean publications, but Foreign Policy magazine obviously isn't). Granted, living in Korea almost certainly makes me more likely to follow Korean news, but that's about as enhanced as my research gets.

About the only thing I pull rank on is certain aspects of everyday life in the ROK. I think someone once claimed on this forum that South Koreans live in abject fear of protesting against US policy. Having lived in a city where anti-American demonstrations happened a block away from my house on a semi-regular basis, I think I can say with some assurance that isn't true.

re: the Lankov piece again, I don't think he's neccesarily arguing that the nuke agreement was part of a deliberate plot to eventually attack Libya, since, as you say, that makes the eight-year timeline a little hard to explain. Just that giving up the nukes made it easier for Qadaffi to be ousted when the west(and yes, I hold certain European countries accountable for that too) decided they wanted him gone.

VOTD: And just to be clear, this isn't the same thing as the argument(heard from various "anti-imperialist" quarters) that the North Korean regime are benevolent humanitarians lovingly striving to protect their people from harm. In all likelihood, Kim Jeong Un wanting to prevent an attack on the DPRK is like Marie Antoinette wanting to protect an attack on France. Nothing to do with love for the people, everything to do with personal survival.

WWWTT: This is a type of comment/statement that is usually propagated by imperial/capitalist forces(If I understand it right?) The leadership of North Korea and it's peoples are basically supporting their political ideology. Not really any specific individuals or families. Does anyone really believe that when any of these countries that had so called dictators as their head of state where invaded, the same political ideology was allowed to remain? In fact, I believe that it was the political ideology that the US wanted to change, and not really that hard to convince anyone this is possible (just ask Pinochett) Here's a good rule of thumb, democracy=good chance US can change the government to one that it wants, dictatorship=US enemy(calling someone an enemy is the first step to military invasion). Any questions?

Sure, the North Korean regime promotes an ideology, one that would likely change in the event of an invasion. But it's also pretty clearly promoting the interests of a ruling family and its hangers-on.

The Czars of Russia were promoting Holy Mother Russia and the Orthodox Church. I think they also had a rather obvious interest in promoting the ongoing supply of fresh vodka and caviar to the Winter Palace.

in the same way that a group of bank robbers who've already killed a few hostages and are surrounded by SWAT needs their AK-47s, or whatever guns people would actually use in a heist.

Who will put their hand up to say "... and in that case, they have every right to whatever weapons will prevent their apprehension. Bank robbers don't have the same beliefs about innocent lives as we do, and it's not for us to try to 'wake' them"?

I'm only asking because you seem to be acknowledging that DPRK aren't just a placid nation of farmers whose only wish is to be left alone, to farm. Unless nukes grow on a vine.

And I'll explicitly state that I did NOT include North Korea in the countries we don't like because the North Korean government's tyranny is in a category all of it's own compared to anything else going on in the world right now or in the last few decades. I have nothing but sympathy for the North Korean people, and I even understand the lack of options faced by their leaders - but frankly I find it appalling that you'd justify and even seem to cheer for the enslavement and starvation of millions of people - and, apparently, the nuclear obliteration of hundreds of millions more - just to stick it to the U.S. imperialists. Your solution is magnitudes worse than the problem you claim to want to solve.

Who will put their hand up to say "... and in that case, they have every right to whatever weapons will prevent their apprehension. Bank robbers don't have the same beliefs about innocent lives as we do, and it's not for us to try to 'wake' them"?

I'm only asking because you seem to be acknowledging that DPRK aren't just a placid nation of farmers whose only wish is to be left alone, to farm. Unless nukes grow on a vine.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not saying the NK ruling party has any "right" to anything. I'm just saying that through their past and present reprehensible behaviour they've put themselves in a position where they do need WMDs in order to survive. Not necessarily nukes, technically - as long as they can destroy Seoul with other weaponry they have a hostage of sufficient importance. But broadly speaking if they say they need WMDs to defend themselves, well, that's true. Doesn't mean they are blameless by any stretch.

In some sense, I was suggesting that the bank robber's claim would be facetious as it ignores all the context of the situation or how they got to that point. Likewise with NK.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not saying the NK ruling party has any "right" to anything. I'm just saying that through their past and present reprehensible behaviour they've put themselves in a position where they do need WMDs in order to survive.

And I'll explicitly state that I did NOT include North Korea in the countries we don't like because the North Korean government's tyranny is in a category all of it's own compared to anything else going on in the world right now or in the last few decades. I have nothing but sympathy for the North Korean people, and I even understand the lack of options faced by their leaders - but frankly I find it appalling that you'd justify and even seem to cheer for the enslavement and starvation of millions of people - and, apparently, the nuclear obliteration of hundreds of millions more - just to stick it to the U.S. imperialists. Your solution is magnitudes worse than the problem you claim to want to solve.

The North Korean government strictly monitors the activities of foreign visitors. Aid workers are subjected to considerable scrutiny and they are also excluded from places and regions which the government does not want them to enter. Since citizens cannot freely leave the country,[6][7] it is mainly from stories of refugees and defectors that the nation's human rights record has been constructed. The government's position, expressed through the Korean Central News Agency, is that international criticism of its human rights record is a pretext for overthrowing its Juche-based system, while the abuses of its critics go unpunished.[8][9]

North Korea's human rights record has been considered among the worst in the world and has been globally condemned, with groups such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the European Union all critical of the country's record. Indeed, most international human rights organizations consider North Korea to have no contemporary parallel[10] with respect to violations of liberty.[11][12][13][14]

The General Assembly of the United Nations has since 2003 annually adopted a resolution condemning the country's human rights record. The latest resolution of December 19, 2011, passed by a vote of 123–16 with 51 abstentions, urged the government in Pyongyang to end its "systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights", which included public executions and arbitrary detentions. North Korea rejected the resolution, saying it was politically motivated and based upon untrue fabrications.[15] In February 2014, a UN special commission published a detailed, 400-page account based on first-hand testimonies documenting "unspeakable atrocities" committed in the country.[16]

Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention, the absence of due process and the rule of law, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour;

Sanctions on citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, such as treating their departure as treason leading to punishments of internment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty;

All-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association and on access of everyone to information, and limitations imposed on every person who wishes to move freely within the country and travel abroad;

Continued violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the trafficking of women for prostitution or forced marriage, ethnically motivated forced abortions, including by labour-inducing injection or natural delivery, as well as infanticide of children of repatriated mothers, including in police detention centres and labour training camps.[34]

According to Human Rights Watch, children (some as young as 11[36]) are forced to work on farms and construction sites at the behest of the government, and may be demanded to gather scrap metals and other materials by schools to be sold.[37] The labor can be intensive and children living in the country's Kwalliso (detention camps) are also forced to engage in heavy work.[36]

North Korean citizens usually cannot freely travel around the country,[32] let alone travel abroad.[6][7][32] Emigration and immigration are strictly controlled.[32][72] Only the political elite may own or lease vehicles, and the government limits access to fuel and other forms of transport due to frequent shortages of gasoline/petrol, diesel fuel, crude oil, coal and other fossil fuels (satellite photos of North Korea show an almost complete absence of vehicles on all of its roads throughout the country, even in its cities). Forced resettlement of citizens and whole families, especially as punishment for political reasons, is said to be routine.[73]

North Korean refugees who flee to China are often later forcibly repatriated back to North Korea by authorities, are routinely beaten, and sent to prison camps.[74] This is because the North Korean government treats emigrants from the country as defectors.[74] This treatment is more severe in cases where North Korean refugees have come into contact with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are associated with South Korea or with religions, especially Christianity.[74] In cases where the North Korean government discovers that contact has occurred between refugees and these NGOs, the punishments for these refugees are torture and execution upon their repatriation back to North Korea.[74]

But it's okay, because, (and I quote from your article) "conditions in North Korea are vastly better than those in other developing countries", "that conditions in North Korea compare so well with countries elsewhere in Asia with plentiful and fertile farmland and which are well-integrated into the world economy speaks to North Korea’s heroic resistance to U.S. efforts at isolation and forcible regime change", and of course we "should understand that imperialism is the foundation of modern capitalism".

Those terrible U.S. imperialists "require ever-cheaper resources and labor power", and "opposing imperialism is ... imperative for all people in the hubs of global capitalism in the struggle for socialism."

I have just one question. If the U.S. quest for cheaper labour power is so terrible, and the North Korean regime is so noble for resisting U.S. imperialism, then how do you justify this?

"Trump's denunciation of Beijing again demonstrates that the targeting of North Korea over its nuclear arsenal is aimed more broadly against China. The latest US National Security Strategy identifies China along with Russia as a major threat to American global dominance. The US military build-up in Asia against North Korea is also in preparation for war against China. The latest Trump tweet smacks of a contrived provocation aimed at further ramping up tensions...."

"The S-400 anti-aircraft system is designed to shoot down aerodynamic targets at a range of up to 400 km and ballistic missiles up to 60 km away. The system can use at least four interceptor missile types suited for different targets, while an S-400 detachment can engage up to 36 targets simultaneously. Such characteristics put the S-400 ahead of the US Patriot system, which supports only one interceptor missile with a range of 96km, National Interest reported, describing the S-400 as a 'game changer' in the Middle East..." https://on.rt.com/8vur

I have just one question. If the U.S. quest for cheaper labour power is so terrible, and the North Korean regime is so noble for resisting U.S. imperialism, then how do you justify this?

Don't want to justify any of this. After all, this is a debate forum on the internet. I'm just pointing out that if one was to actually look, you can find perfectly reasonable opposing arguments. Now obviously, if you want to dig up dirt on North Korea on the internet, a whole lot of stuff is going to come up. And no surprise since there's a media propaganda war going on. And we all know this very well. But maybe some people have forgotton about all those WMD Iraq was supposed to have in 2002? And the UN weapons inspectors going into Iraq were US plants?

devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war.

But evidently, far less than what was necessary to win it. Or else how did it end in an armistice rather than a victory? It's pretty hard to call it "overkill" if it wasn't even enough.

I also found this little note, from Walkom's article, interesting:

Quote:

Technically, the war that began in 1950 when Pyongyang invaded South Korea is still ongoing.

So this fight began when the skinny kid smashed his glasses on the big bully's fist? Or what? The situation is all America's fault how again??

That war began when the "arrogant" leaders in the North after throwing the vile Japanese out of their country refused to agree to have the US split their country into two nations. Of course if they had just agreed with the bully he would not have beat them up and raped their mother ansd sisters. Like the US troops did during that war and in most if not all other wars they have been in since they started their genocidal pattern with my Acadian ancestors.

Meanwhile with the propaganda wars the North Koreans are posting these pictures and other like it of our school children being forced to do hard labour.

"In light of the nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea being frequently compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis and discussion of hypothetical worst-case scenarios, it's worth reviewing the United States' record and examining whether North Korea is really the belligerent nuclear menace the world needs to liberate itself from..."

That war began when the "arrogant" leaders in the North after throwing the vile Japanese out of their country

Seems they timed the throwing out of Japanese forces to exactly coincide with the U.S. defeating Japan in WWII.

Just like the Chinese did as well although they had to also defeat the US toadies after defeating the Japanese. And like the Soviets who timed their defeat of Germany just as the US was single handedly running across Europe. Fuck I missed out on the US indoctrination camps as a youth. Where did you go for yours?

Fuck I missed out on the US indoctrination camps as a youth. Where did you go for yours?

To the internet, I guess.

But Korea was under Japan's thumb for about 35 years, until Japan got their ass beat in WWII. If you have some good evidence that, in fact, NK valiantly threw Japan out of the peninsula, show us. I'm not asking whether Korea resisted Japanese rule, BTW. Of course they did. But tell us more about how NK (not SK!) gave those rotters the old heave ho.

My wife’s grandmother helped the Korean resistance by giving them food and medicine.

The Japanese gave up Korea because they lost the war to the Allies. While they were harassed by the Korean resistance the reality is they were in no way “driven out by them”. Sorry but those are the facts.

The Koreans were pretty much united in their resistance under the Japanese occupation (with the bulk of communists being in the northern part of the country, close to China). The real division happened when the Soviet Union and the USA divided the country into two areas of responsibility. The now “Grandfather Kim” rose through the ranks in the communist north, got in power, and then rewrote history to show he lead the resistance that kicked out the Japanese (ect ect). Of course the north becomes communist/Eastern dominated and controlled while the south was leaning more towards the USA and the West. The two armies, being infantry armies, were about equal and were mostly defensive in nature. The Soviet Union upset that balance by giving NK about 200 T-34/85 tanks and hundreds of artillery pieces which made the NK army more than capable to go on the attack... which it did.

Interestingly, though, in the present-day ROK, the most left-wing regions are the Jeolla Provinces, especially South Jeolla, with a history of such politics going back at least to the occupation period(when Japanese visitors were supposedly advised against coming here, for fear of violent attack). But the Jeollas are in the far southwest of the country. I've been told that a lot of people from around here fought as Communist guerillas during the Korean War, but I don't know many details about that.

Interestingly, though, in the present-day ROK, the most left-wing regions are the Jeolla Provinces, especially South Jeolla, with a history of such politics going back at least to the occupation period(when Japanese visitors were supposedly advised against coming here, for fear of violent attack). But the Jeollas are in the far southwest of the country. I've been told that a lot of people from around here fought as Communist guerillas during the Korean War, but I don't know many details about that.

I was being simplistic in my history telling. While true for that area; it was a bastion of communism in the south, most of the communist were still mostly up north. It's not like when they split the country in two all the communist had to run up north... they were mostly all there already. I guess the real point I was trying to make was Stalin upset the military balance in Korea by giving the north those tanks and artillery. They really transformed the military situation on the peninsula which in the end resulted in the situation we are seeing now.

"The most important thing is that they did not stop the executions, historian Jung Byung-joon, a member of the 2-year old commission, said of the Americans. 'They were at the crime scene, and took pictures and wrote reports...The commission's estimate of 100,000 dead is 'very conservative'."

"The most important thing is that they did not stop the executions, historian Jung Byung-joon, a member of the 2-year old commission, said of the Americans. 'They were at the crime scene, and took pictures and wrote reports...The commission's estimate of 100,000 dead is 'very conservative'."

"If we Canadians think a lasting peace with North Korea will be obtained by insulting and starving the population of that beleagured country we are as foolish and as heartless as those who put their faith in bombs..."

I'm thinking Justin Trudea is going to come away from this upcoming meeting in Vancouver empty handed and probably with another little failure on his already growing list. This article you posted NDPP seems to be moving in this direction. I sense a conflict between China and Justin T. and anything that China has a strong hand in, they seem a little eager to give JT a bit of a black eye over. This meeting if anything will only make a stronger connection between Trump and JT or JT and the Trump team.

The North Koreans have a perfect example of what happens when a country signs a deal with the US. WTF possible reason could any country have for striking a deal with the devil who has broken treaties at their pleasure for at least a hundred and fifty years. Any deal with the evil empire lasts exactly as long as it wants them to and not a day longer.

Assuming he's even personally in attendance, what's supposed to be his "win"?

Ya that's a good question! I'm assuming a peace treaty? Or probably something a couple notches lower? Who knows? Realisticly I should probably guess that this meeting is another publicity stunt that the major palyers on the Communist side see right through and are more than happy to give it back in spades if given the chance.

Actually I mean the treaty that the US and the rest of the UN Security Councel signed with Iran over their nuclear program. After watching the war mongering emminating out of the White House about Iran and its nuclear program, despite the UN giving Iran a thumbs up for compliance, what country would want to sit down and trade anything away to get the US's signature on a treaty. Getting the US agreement is fucking meaningless because they are a rogue state that believes they have the right to rule the world and renege on any agreement at anytime even when it was negotiated by multiple parties like the Iranian treaty.

After watching the war mongering emminating out of the White House about Iran and its nuclear program, despite the UN giving Iran a thumbs up for compliance, what country would want to sit down and trade anything away to get the US's signature on a treaty.

Then DPRK should only worry about getting the rest of the UN's signatures. Screw Uncle Sam!

After watching the war mongering emminating out of the White House about Iran and its nuclear program, despite the UN giving Iran a thumbs up for compliance, what country would want to sit down and trade anything away to get the US's signature on a treaty.

Then DPRK should only worry about getting the rest of the UN's signatures. Screw Uncle Sam!

Why? Is the UN about to stop the US from having annual mock invasions that may or may not turn out to be real. Is the Security Council going to rein in the US and demand it stop making war threats to its percieved enemies.

If South Korea and North Korea wanted to sit down and work out a peace treaty without US involvement then there might be some hope of success.

"In a phone conversation with Trump earlier this week, president Moon was able to convince his ally to postpone their joint annual Foal Eagle exercises until after the Winter Paralympic Games in March, so that the talks between the two Koreas have a chance to succeed..."